CHARLES HINES, APPELLANT,
v.
COLUMBIA LIVESTOCK MARKET OF LAKE CITY, INC., A CORPORATION, AND STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1987-12-10
No. BS-261
SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur.
516 So. 2d 1040 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1987) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that sovereign immunity does not preclude recovery for alleged negligence in the operational aspects of a brucellosis testing program.


Headnotes

[1] Sovereign immunity does not preclude recovery for negligence in operational acts by governmental employees, even when engaged in public safety functions.

[2] A governmental entity may be liable for negligent handling of equipment, as distinguished from discretionary governmental functions, under the waiver of sovereign immunit…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant alleged negligence in a brucellosis test administered to his cattle, leading to their slaughter and quarantine of his remaining herd. The De…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
WENTWORTH, Judge.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order granting summary judgment in favor of the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. We find that the court below erred in determining that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes any recovery upon the allegations of appellant’s complaint. We therefore reverse the order appealed.

Appellant filed a complaint against the Columbia Livestock Market alleging that he had delivered cattle for sale which were then tested for brucellosis. The complaint alleged that the test indicated positive, causing the delivered cattle to be slaughtered and appellant’s remaining cattle to be quarantined and branded. Asserting that the positive test indication was an error resulting from negligence, appellant amended the complaint to add the Department of Agriculture as a defendant and further alleged that the brucellosis test had been administered pursuant to statutes and regulations1 enforced by the Department acting in concert with the Columbia Livestock Market.2

In granting summary judgment for the Department of Agriculture the court relied upon Trianon Park Condominium Assoc. Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1985), and determined that the allegations of negligence involve discretionary governmental functions which are immune from suit despite the limited waiver of sovereign immunity effectuated by section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Trianon Park establishes that:

‘there is no governmental tort liability for the action or inaction of governmental officials or employees in carrying out the discretionary governmental functions [of enforcing the laws and protecting the public safety] because there has never been a common law duty of care with respect to these ... police power functions, and the statutory waiver of immunity did not create a new duty of care.’ At 921. (Emphasis added.)

City of Daytona Beach v. Palmer, 469 So. 2d 121, at 122 (Fla.1985), citing Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1985). The Trianon opinion, however, clearly distinguished liability for negligence in operational acts by those engaged in public safety functions:

The lack of a common law duty for exercising a discretionary police power function must, however, be distinguished from existing common law duties of care applicable to the same officials or employees in the operation of motor vehicles or the handling of firearms during the course of their employment to enforce compliance with the law. In these latter circumstnaces there always has been a common law duty of care and the waiver of sovereign immunity now allows actions against all governmental entities for violations of those duties of care. Trianon Park, supra, at 920. See City of Daytona Beach v. Palmer, supra, at 123;3 and Hartley v. Floyd, 512 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As indicated in Palmer, governmental entities may be liable for such conduct, including the negligent handling of equipment, as a result of the enactment of section 768.28, Florida Statutes.

We conclude that the lower court’s reliance upon the decision against liability in Trianon Park is inappropriate in the circumstances of the present case. Appellant’s complaint is not limited to the discretionary governmental decision to implement a brucellosis testing program, or the choice of a particular testing procedure. Since appellant may attempt to prove, pursuant to allegations of the complaint, negligence which is actionable in accordance with the principles above cited, summary judgment is improper. The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded.

SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur. . Chapter 585, Florida Statutes, e.g. section 585.-11(2); Rule 5C-6.01(1), Fla.Admin.Code.

. Summary judgment was entered for Columbia Livestock Market upon a determination that the veterinarian administering the brucellosis test "was an independent contractor or was without employee or agency status.” This order was expressly made inapplicable to the Department of Agriculture "because this finding is based upon depositions taken before the ... Department of Agriculture ... was joined as a party defendant_” On appeal to this court the summary judgment for Columbia Livestock Market was affirmed (Hines v. Columbia Livestock Market, 491 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)).

. “We distinguish these types of discretionary ... decisions from negligent conduct resulting in ... personal injury ... from the negligent handling of equipment_ Governmental entities are clearly liable for this type of conduct as a result of the enactment of section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1983).” City of Daytona Beach v. Palmer, supra, at 123.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mosby v. Harrell, 909 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
    …ns on the investigation of crimes and enforcement of the state’s criminal laws. I agree with the majority that no logical or legally sustainable basis exists for distinguishing this case from our prior decision in Hines v. Columbia Livestock Market, 516 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1988). Although I believe Hines was incorrectly decided, I am required to recognize this controlling precedent. I believe the decision in Layton v. Fla. Department of Highway Safety and Motor…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw